透過認知語言學與Mey (2001)所提出的語用行為理論，本論文旨在探討聖經中救恩的隱喻，擴展一個社會與認知兼容的研究視野。學者已著墨隱喻在言談中獨特的用意(例如: Sopory, 1999; Charteris-Black, 2005; Inya, 2012)。然而，在聖經經文與基督徒見證體裁中，隱喻如何架構一個語用位(pragmeme)、造成轉換作用(transformative effect)、進而執行語用行為，卻未受到相對的重視。在本篇論文中，筆者認為，聖經中的救恩隱喻展現了救(即救贖)的語用行為(the pragmatic act of saving)。而本研究著重分析聖經中四種主要的救恩隱喻與審視基督徒網站的得救見證分享，展示傳達者與接收者之間的語用行為表現。透過Lakoff與Johnson (1980)所提出的概念隱喻理論(conceptual metaphor)、Fauconnier和Turner (2002)的概念合成理論(blending theory)以及Mey (2001)的語用行為模型做為主要的研究方法，本文闡述聖經文本所例示的救恩面貌。分析結果顯示，造就救恩的語用行為，隱喻功不可沒，其所形構的動態場景，乃了解救恩意義的關鍵。此外，救恩的語用素(pract)，即廣義的語用行為，如：誡慰(warning-comforting)、制定條件(conditioning)、證明(certifying)、生效(validating)與展現愛(showing love)等等，亦透過隱喻闡釋。各個救恩的隱喻，如：奴隸買賣、審判、贖罪祭、和收養，則用來建構一個通向救恩的新曙光，引領通往盼望的天堂之路。另外，Sperber和Wilson (1996)的關聯理論(relevance theory)在本研究中輔助說明語境效果(contextual effect)和傳達者與接收者之間的合作言行表現。接收者所表現的語用行為—信仰或相信—主要仰賴於語境中的可用性(affordance)與救恩訊息對於接收者的關聯性(relevance)。

The present study aims to extend a social-cognitive approach to metaphor by drawing on insights from both cognitive linguistics and Mey’s (2001) pragmatic act theory. Many scholars agree with the distinctive force of metaphor in discourse (e.g. Sopory, 1999; Charteris-Black, 2005; Inya, 2012). However, the significant performance of metaphor in framing a pragmeme and its transformative effect in the genres of Bible verses and Christians’ testimonies have been overlooked. In this thesis, I argue that the metaphors of salvation in the Bible perform the pragmatic act of saving (i.e. salvation). The present study focuses on four major types of salvation metaphors used in both the verses in the Bible and some Christians’ testimonies from the website “luke54.org” in order to demonstrate how such metaphors are produced and perceived. By employing Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) conceptual metaphor theory, Fauconnier & Turner’s (2002) blending theory and Mey’s (2001) pragmatic act model as the methods, this study expounds the feature of the biblical salvation in textual exemplification. The analysis reveals that as one of the predominant elements in the performance of saving, metaphor creates an active scene which allows people to see the meaning of salvation. In addition, the practs (e.g. generalized acts such as warning-comforting, conditioning, certifying, validating and showing love) are construed by the metaphors involved. The various metaphors (e.g. SLAVE TRADE, JUDGMENT, ATONEMENT, and ADOPTION) of the saving act are used to construct a new reality towards salvation and to fulfill the experiential feasibility of the heavenly hope. Besides, Sperber and Wilson’s (1996) relevance theory helps to illustrate the contextual effects and the co-opting between addressors and addressees. It shows that the pragmatic act of faithing (i.e. believing) which is performed by addressees relies mostly on the affordance of the context and the relevance of the saving messages.

論文審定書 i
Acknowledgements ii
中文摘要 iv
Abstract v
List of Figure x
List of Tables xi

Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Research purpose and motivation 5
1.3 Research questions 10
1.4 Overview 14

Chapter 2 Literature review 16
2.1 Speech acts and situated speech acts 16
2.1.1 Speech acts and indirect speech acts 17
2.1.2 Speech acts fallacy and situated speech acts 21
2.2 Pragmatic acts and pragmemes 22
2.2.1 The pragmatic act theory 23
2.2.2 The norms of interpretation and the explanatory movement 28
2.2.3 The interplay between contextual elements and pragmemes 33
2.2.4 Why pragmatic act? 38

Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework 45
3.1 Conceptual metaphor theory 45
3.1.1 Metaphorical mapping 46
3.1.2 The cognitive function based classification 52
3.1.3 Metonymy 57
3.2 Blending 64
3.3 Relevance theory 71
3.4 The modified model for a socio-cognitive analysis 78

Chapter 4 Research Data and Data Analyses 84
4.1 Research data 84
4.1.1 Data collection and rationale 84
4.1.2 Data analysis methods 88
4.2 Data analyses 88
4.2.1 The metaphor of salvation 89
4.2.1.1 The source domain of salvation metaphor: slave trade 90
4.2.1.2 The coherence among source domains 97
4.2.2 The pragmatic act of salvation: to save 107
4.2.2.1 Ontological metaphors and the affordance of pragmatic act of saving 108
4.2.2.2 The hiding voice: contextual operation and Blending 114
4.2.2.3 Addressor and addressee: to save and to be saved 133
4.2.3 The interaction of metaphor and pragmatic act 149
4.2.3.1 The overview: the harmonious cooperation 159

Chapter 5 Conclusion 161
5.1 Conclusion 161
5.2 Limitations and implications 164

References 167
Appendix 1 180

Allan, K. (2010). Referring as a pragmatic act. Journal of Pragmatics 42(11), 2919-2931.
Aristotle (2007). On Rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (G.A. Kennedy, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aristotle (2008). Poetics (S. H. Butcher, Trans.). New York: CosimoClassics.
Atkinson, M. A., Cuff, E. C., Lee, J. R., (1978). The recommencement of a meeting as a members’ accomplishment. In: J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 133-153). New York: Academic Press.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bara, B. G. (2010). Cognitive pragmatics: the mental processes of communication. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Barr, D. J., & Keysar, B. (2005). Making sense of how we make sense: the paradox of egocentrism in language use. In: H. L. Colston & A. N. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension (pp. 21–43). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Blackwell, S. E. (2010). Evaluation as a pragmatic act in Spanish film narratives. Journal of Pragmatics 42(2010), 2945-2963.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1961). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In: T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 253- 76). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT press.
Burke, T. J. (2008). Adopted as Sons: The missing piece in Pauline soteriology. In: S. E. Porter (Ed.), Paul: Jew, Greek, and Roman (pp. 259-288). Leiden: Brill. Hamilton, 2010.
Capone, A. (2001). Modal adverbs and discourse: two essays. Pisa: ETS.
Capone, A. (2005). Pragmemes (a study with reference to English and Italian). Journal of Pragmatics 37(9), 1355-1371.
Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and rhetoric: the persuasive power of metaphor. Houndmill, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Christian Booksellers Association. (2013, April 27). JUNE 2013 CBA BEST SELLERS [Online Resources]. Retrieved from http://cbanews.org/category/bestsellers/
Colijn, B. B. (2010). Images of salvation in the New Testament. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic.
Committee on Bible Translation (2010, August). Updating the New International Version of the Bible: Notes from the Committee on Bible Translation [Online Resources]. Retrieved from http://crfoursquare.com/documents/niv_2011_translators_notes.pdf
Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics 4, 335-70.
Cruse, D. A. (2000). Meaning in language: an introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dummnett, M. (Ed.) (2003). Mood, force and convention. The seas of language (pp. 202-223). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Fauconnier, G. (2004). Pragmatics and cognitive linguistics. In L. R. Horn & G. L. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 657-674). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Principles of conceptual integration. In J. P. Koenig (Ed.), Discourse and cognition (pp. 269-283). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Finlan, S. (2004). The background and content of Paul's cultic atonement metaphors. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Geeraerts, D. (2002). The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In R. Dirven and R. Porings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.435-65). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (1999). Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting into the cultural world. In R. Gibbs and G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 145-166). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goatly, A. (1997). The language of metaphors. London: Routledge.
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic actions. Cognitive Linguistics 1, 323-40.
Goossens, L. (2002). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. In R. Dirven and R. Porings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 349-77). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grady, J. E. (2007). Metaphor. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.). The oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 188-212). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grice, H. P. (1961). The causal theory of perception. Proceedings of the Aristotelian society, supplementary 35: 121-152. Partially reprinted in H. P. Grice 1989, (pp. 224-247)
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Gumperz, J. (1977). Sociocultural knowledge in conversational inference. In: M. Savillle-Troike (Ed.), Linguistics and anthropology (pp. 191-211). Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Gunton, C. E. (2003). Father, Son, and Holy Spirit essays toward a fully trinitarian theology. London: T & T Clark.
Harper, D. (2001-2013). Online Etymology Dictionary. [Online Dictionary]. Retrieved from http://www.etymonline.com/
Hobbs, V. (2005). The father and the son and the Holy Spirit: or oneness-Jesus only. S.l.: Xulon Press.
Inya, O., (2012). ‘Defending a thesis’: Pragmatic acts in contemporary Christian apologetics. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 2(10), 2016-2023. Academy Publisher. doi: 10.4304/tpls.2.10.2016-2023.
Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1983). Strategy and structure in conversational influence attempts. Communication Monographs 50, 285-304.
Jäkel, O. (1993). Is metaphor really a one-way street?: one of the basic tenets of the cognitive theory of metaphor put to the test. Hamburg: Seminar für Englische Sprache und Kultur.
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2005). Default semantics: Foundations of a compositional theory of acts of communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2009). Representing time: An essay on temporality as modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kecskes, I, & Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition 17(2), 331-335. doi: 10.1075/p&c.17.2.06kec.
Kecskes, I. (2003). Situation-bound utterances in L1 and L2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kecskes, I. (2010a). The paradox of communication: Socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics. Pragmatics and Society 1(1), 50–73. John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/ps.1.1.04kecissn 1878–9714 / e-issn 1878–9722 c
Kecskes, I. (2010b). Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics 42(2010), 2889-2897.
Kecskes, I. & Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking, and creating common ground.
Pragmatics & Cognition 17(2), 331–355.
Keysar, B. (2007). Communication and miscommunication: the role of egocentric processes. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(1), 71–84.
Keysar, B. and Bly, B. (1995). Intuitions of the transparency of idioms: Can one keep a secret by spilling the beans? Journal of Memory and Language 34, 89–109.
Keysar, B., & Henly, A. (2002). Speakers’ overestimation of their effectiveness. Psychological Science 13, 207–212.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction, (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Labov, W. (2001). Principles of linguistic change. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In O. Andrew (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202-51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1994). What is a conceptual system? In W. Overton (Ed.). Proceedings of the 1991 meeting of the Piaget society. Norwood. N. J.: Erlbaum.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. (1st ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: a field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Lee, Y. –O. (2009). Cultural impacts on metaphors for speech act: a comparative study between Korean and English, Proceedings of World Communication Association, (2009).
Levinson, S. C. (1979). Activity types and language. Linguistics, 17(5-6), 365-399.
Liu, S. –Z. (2011). Evidencing sensemaking: A speech act theory study of metaphors in organizational mission statements. (Doctoral dissertation). The University of North Carolina, Greensboro.
Lundberg, M. (2002). Notes on the book Meaning in language, by D. A. Cruse [Online Resource]. Retrieved from http://dooku.miun.se/engelska/englishd/englishdling/semantics/summary of cruse.pdf
Mendoza, R. & Velasco, D. (2002). Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven and R. Porings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489-532). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Mey, J. L. (2006a). Metaphors and activity, DELTA Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada, 22 (spe) 45-65.
Mey, J. L. (2006b). Pragmatic acts. In: E. K. Brown (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2nd ed.). (p. 5-11). Boston: Elsevier.
Mey, J. L., (2010). Reference and the pragmeme, Journal of Pragmatics 42(2010), 2882-2888.
Oakley, T. (2007). Image schemas. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 214-235). Oxford University Press.
Online 中文/英文聖經 Holy-Bible. (n.d.).Online 中文/英文聖經 Holy-Bible. Retrieved from http://www.holybible.or.kr/BIBLE_cb5/
Panther, K. –U. & Thornburg, L. (2002). The roles of metaphor and metonymy in English -er nominals. In R. Dirven and R. Porings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp.279-319). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Panther, K. –U. & Thornburg, L. L. (2007). Metonymy. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.). The oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 238-263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Papafragou, A. (1996). Figurative language and the semantics-pragmatics distinction. Language and Literature 5, 179-93.
Radden, G. & Kövecses, Z. (1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. In K. U. Panther and G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.17-59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Richards, I. A. (1936). The philosophy of rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press.
Roennfeldt R. (2008). Metaphors of Salvation. (2008, November). Spectrum, Retrieved April 20, 2012, from the World Wide Web: http://spectrummagazine.org/node/1236.
Scott, C. A. (2008). Christianity according to St. Paul. Cambridge: University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1980a). Intrinsic intentionality. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, 450-456.
Searle, J. R. (1980b). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, 417-424.
Searle, J. R. (1984). Minds, brains, and science. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Simpson, J. A., & Weiner, E. S. (1989).The Oxford English dictionary (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sopory, P. (1999). Metaphor and persuasion. (Doctorial dissertation). The University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Blackwell.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1998) The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In P. Carruthers & J. Boucher (Eds.) Language and thought: Interdisciplinary themes (pp. 184-200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (2002) Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind & Language 17. 3-23.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (2008). A deflationary account of metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 85-105). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stalnaker, R. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics & Philosophy 25, 701-721
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. England: Cambridge University Press.
The Chinese Study Bible. (1992). In Yu, Timothy (Ed.). HK: The Rock House Publishers.
Thornburg, L., Panther, K. U. (1997). Speech act metonymies. In: W. Liebert, G. Redeker, L. R. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (pp. 205-219). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tseng, M. –Y. (2010a). Analyzing the discourse of job-application videos: Performance and relevance. Text & Talk - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies, 30(5), 571-589.
Tseng, M. –Y. (2010b). The pragmatic act of fishing for personal details: from choice to performance. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(7), 1982-1996.
Tyler, S. A. (1967). The said and the unsaid. Houston, Tex.: Rice University Press.
Veale, T. & Keane, M. T. (1994). Belief Modeling, Intentionality and Perlocution in Metaphor Comprehension Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Atlanta, Georgia (1994).
Verschueren, J. (1979). What people say they do with words. (Doctorial dissertation). Berkeley, Calif. The University of California, Los Angeles.
Verschueren, J. (1987). Pragmatics as a theory of linguistic adaptation. IPrA Working Document 1. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association. Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics. London: Arnold
Wellman, J. (2011, May 18). 5 tips for picking the best Bible translation [Online Article]. Retrieved from http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/five-tips-for-picking-the-best-bible-translation/
Wikipedia, (2013, July). Old Testament [Online free encyclopedia]. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In L. R. Horn & G. L. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607-632). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
Wong, J. (2010). The “triple articulation” of language. Journal of pragmatics 42 (2010), 2932-2944.